Employment Law Case Study: Betty's Claim Against Whitfords Beach Ltd.

This case study delves into an employment law scenario involving Betty and Whitfords Beach Ltd. The central issue revolves around Betty's ability to enforce a judgment against the company after she was unfairly dismissed. The analysis applies key legal precedents, including Crozier v Palazzo Corporation Pty Ltd, Gooch v Proware Pty Ltd, Smith v Trollope Silverwood & Beck Pty Ltd, Crowe v R and R Poultry Pty. Ltd., and Grujevski v Queens Wharf Brewery. The solution examines the unfair dismissal, the company's attempt to avoid the judgment through insolvency, and Betty's legal recourse. The conclusion affirms Betty's right to enforce the judgment, supported by relevant case law concerning employee rights during company insolvency or voluntary administration. The study highlights the importance of proper notice, fair treatment, and the enforceability of judgments in employment law disputes.

Running head: EMPLOYMENT LAW
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1EMPLOYMENT LAW
Issue
The issue in the given scenario is whether Betty will be able to enforce or implement the
judgment against the organization named Whitfords Beach Ltd.
Rule
The case of Crozier v Palazzo Corporation Pty Ltd (2000) 98 IR 137 is a significant case
regarding unfair dismissal circumstances. In this case, it had been stated that a proper notice
should be given to an employee before dismissing that particular employee, hence, giving an
opportunity to such employee to demonstrate his side of the story.
The case of Gooch v Proware Pty Ltd T/A TSM (The Service Manager) [2012] FWA
10626 shall be considered to be an important case in this regard. In this particular case, it was
held that the dismissal of Ms. Gooch was unfair, unjust and harsh, hence, compensation was
ordered by the court in favor of Ms. Gooch.
The case of Smith v Trollope Silverwood & Beck Pty Ltd (2003) 142 IR 137 shall be
considered to be a relevant case in this regard. In this particular case, it had been mentioned that
an employee is entitled and shall have the privilege to file an application or continue with an
application, which has been previously filed by the employee, against the employer, even when
the employer is insolvent or is involved in the process regarding voluntary administration.
The case of Crowe v R and R Poultry Pty. Ltd. (2017) FWC 2954 shall be considered to
be a significant case in this regard. In this particular case, it had been stated that an employee
shall be eligible and shall have the privilege to file an application or continue with an
application, which has been previously filed by the employee, against the employer, even when

2EMPLOYMENT LAW
the employer is insolvent or is involved in the process regarding voluntary administration. The
Commission shall not be able to prohibit the employee from initiating or continuing with an
application against the employer, even when such employer is insolvent or under voluntary
administration.
The case of Grujevski v Queens Wharf Brewery [2014] FWC 3725 shall be considered to
be an important case in this regard. In this particular case, it may be said that a commission
relating to voluntary administration shall not have the authority to restrict an employee from
initiating or continuing with an application against the employer, when such employer is under
voluntary administration. Only the competent court shall have the discretion to determine and
deliberate that whether an employee will be able to file an application or continue with an
application, which has been previously filed by the employee, against the employer, when the
employer is involved in the process regarding voluntary administration.
Application
In the given scenario, Betty had been dismissed without any adequate reason being
forwarded by the organization named Whitfords Beach Ltd. Anticipating the steps of Betty, the
organization cleverly started a new company and made the old organization insolvent. However,
Betty made a successful claim against the old organization.
The case of Crozier v Palazzo Corporation Pty Ltd (2000) 98 IR 137 shall be applied in
the given scenario. It may be said that no notice had been given to Betty before dismissing her,
and no opportunity to Betty was given in order to respond in contradiction to such dismissal.

3EMPLOYMENT LAW
The case of Gooch v Proware Pty Ltd T/A TSM (The Service Manager) [2012] FWA
10626 shall be applied in the given scenario. It may be said that the dismissal of Betty was
unfair, unjust and harsh.
The cases of Smith v Trollope Silverwood & Beck Pty Ltd (2003) 142 IR 137 and Crowe
v R and R Poultry Pty. Ltd. (2017) FWC 2954 shall be applied in the given scenario. In the
aforementioned cases, it had been mentioned that an employee is entitled and shall have the
privilege to file an application or continue with an application, which has been previously filed
by the employee, against the employer, even when the employer is insolvent or is involved in the
process regarding voluntary administration. Hence, after the application of the aforementioned
cases, it may be said that Betty shall be able to implement the judgment (as ordered against
Emporium Ltd.) against Whitford Beach Ltd.
Applying the case of Grujevski v Queens Wharf Brewery [2014] FWC 3725, it may be
said that in the given scenario, the decision had been forwarded by a competent court and not any
commission. Hence, such decision may be implemented by Betty against Whitford Beach Ltd.
Conclusion
To conclude, it may be said that Betty shall be able to implement the judgment against
Whitfords Beach Ltd.

4EMPLOYMENT LAW
References
Crowe v R and R Poultry Pty. Ltd. (2017) FWC 2954.
Crozier v Palazzo Corporation Pty Ltd (2000) 98 IR 137.
Gooch v Proware Pty Ltd T/A TSM (The Service Manager) [2012] FWA 10626.
Grujevski v Queens Wharf Brewery [2014] FWC 3725.
Smith v Trollope Silverwood & Beck Pty Ltd (2003) 142 IR 137.